it drives me crazy every time I agree with Scary ... the Government should have no say on ANY "social" issue. They can't get fiscal policy right yet they think they know what's best for others?

This amentment is not broad enough. Guys should be able to marry their inflatable friends or their table saw or their surf board or their caulking gun or their waffle iron or their you get the idea. Call your maladjusted representative right now. Iwill miss this event too, OFB, I'm getting new laces in my tennis shoes that day Love to all - Steve

Are you saying homosexuals are not people? Really?? (I know, I shouldn't waste my time with ignorant people, but I like to think I can educate some...)

I thought church and state were supposed to be SEPARATE?! If you don't like someone else's lifestyle and it DOESN'T directly affect you, keep your nose out of it!

tie

but hope that I read all about it

well, they need to look in the mirror and figure out what their fear is all about...............

Or closer to home, Browerville qualifies also.
Go ahead and cheer the perverts.

Ms. snow? And did boys like that? I think not. The wife was his cover.

I'm agreeing with F&B. lol

Agreement...
Folks who are committed in a relationship with the same sex are NOT child molesters...

That's a whole breed of sick folks...
Sandusky had opportunity and motive, and way too many folks looking the other way...

I want to commend the people that organized this event. They are doing it the right way. They want to get their view out to other people and try to get them to join in a chance to vote against this ammendment. (Note: VOTE)
This is the American way to oppose something you are against. If some people disagree they will still vote yes maybe and if they want to vote no then that's all right too.
As for the rest.
The radicals scream untruths, personally attack people and file lawsuits to keep the amendment from even coming to a vote. That is un-American to me, because it seems to me that they want to disenfranchise a lot of God fearing citizens that deserve better than that.
The party of tolerance always seem to me that they tolerate no dissention at all from their agenda.

"Organizers say the amendment would limit the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Minnesota."

You can't limit something that doesn't exist, and homosexual marriage cannot exist unless you undefine the eternal understanding of human marriage. Yes, I used the word "undefine", because homosexuals have no interest in marriage having any meaning at all. What's next? Letting bisexuals marry a husband AND a wife? Please explain to me on what grounds you could deny this once homosexual marriage is deemed a right? And please, would someone bring up how laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman are like miscegenation laws again? Because miscegenation literally means "interbreeding between members of different races". Hate to tell you, but homosexuals can never breed, regardless of race, so making that analogy only shows how different the two issues are.

Is it discrimination to say that a man can't marry his donkey? How about his grandma? There are few rights that are as restrictive as the right to marry. Over thirty states have laws to prevent people with mental defects from marrying. All states have laws against marrying close relatives and those who are too young to consent. Is this discrimination or common sense?

And you couldn't be more wrong about the number of gay people I know whom I consider to be friends. Not only do I know several now, I worked at San Francisco themed restaurant in Minneapolis in the 70's that not only was run by homosexuals, but also had a high percentage of homosexual customers. I probably have known more homosexuals over my life than you, Snow. My position on traditional marriage has nothing to do with how I feel about individual homosexuals and everything to do with how I feel about the importance of traditional marriage as an institution crucial to society's well-being.

...can't figure out that I was referencing a dictionary definition that used the term "interbreeding". Sorry, but unlike lefties, I don't feel I have the right to make ad hoc and unilateral definition changes--it is what it is--but clearly I would never refer to homosexuals as breeders. That would be stupid. I have heard a lot of homosexuals refer to heterosexuals as breeders, however.

the fact that they think marriage is merely for producing children and comparing it to a breeding farm or animals...

what about couples that choose not to have children? are they not really married? or - have they 'failed?'

I have not commented on this theme because I feel it's so demented.

It may be time to point that out and talk about the underlying 'stuff.' I know a guy who always says, "It's not about the money" when you know it is.

Do your friends know that you think they are not okay?
My gay friends were born that way and my belief is that God does not make mistakes.